View Full Version : What Did They Die For?
Busyman™
10-23-2006, 02:37 AM
As the American soldier death toll is fast approching the 3,000 mark (I don't know for other countries) the question I ask is
What did our soldiers die for?
It is easy to say "well they signed up" but do you find solace in that our soldiers are literally being wasted for....
well....will someone tell me.:(
Shiranai_Baka
10-23-2006, 02:48 AM
They are dying for democracy and... oil?
bigboab
10-23-2006, 08:00 AM
They died because of two dictatorships.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Who sent them out to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.:(
Barbarossa
10-23-2006, 11:47 AM
As the American soldier death toll is fast approching the 3,000 mark (I don't know for other countries) the question I ask is
What did our soldiers die for?
It is easy to say "well they signed up" but do you find solace in that our soldiers are literally being wasted for....
well....will someone tell me.:(
Your government is paranoid that there are people in some parts of the world that don't like them so much that they are prepared to tell people to crash your aeroplanes into your tall buildings.
Therefore they are sending your young soldiers over to those places, to improve relations between your people and their people.
Surprisingly, it's not working too well. :dabs:
What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception :smilie4:
Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As the American soldier death toll is fast approching the 3,000 mark (I don't know for other countries) the question I ask is
What did our soldiers die for?
It is easy to say "well they signed up" but do you find solace in that our soldiers are literally being wasted for....
well....will someone tell me.:(
Your government is paranoid that there are people in some parts of the world that don't like them so much that they are prepared to tell people to crash your aeroplanes into your tall buildings.
Therefore they are sending your young soldiers over to those places, to improve relations between your people and their people.
Surprisingly, it's not working too well. :dabs:
What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception :smilie4:
Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm fairly certain it's not so much an issue of people wanting to be told what to do, so much as an issue of people wanting to be told what to do, rather than dying or starving when some nice blokes from another part of the world decide to give you freedom by bombing the crap out of you :dabs:
EDit:
As for the original question, I suspect they died because Bush started a war in order to stay president, or popular.
Seems he invents another crisis or starts a war whenever his approval ratings are going down :unsure:
Gripper
10-23-2006, 01:32 PM
There is also the view that you can train an army as much as you like,but until they have seen combat you don't know how they will react.
So perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan are just advanced training grounds,I can see no other reason for us to still be there.
Also it is a good place for all the weapons companys to test the new toys they invent to destroy humanity.
Damn I think I'm getting cynical in my old age.
vidcc
10-23-2006, 03:14 PM
The reason we went in has changed so often that it's hard to tell what we are there for.
Apparently, according to the republicans, nobody has ever said "stay the course":huh:
Always follow the orders of your boss
or you won't get paid for the job.
Your government is paranoid that there are people in some parts of the world that don't like them so much that they are prepared to tell people to crash your aeroplanes into your tall buildings.
Therefore they are sending your young soldiers over to those places, to improve relations between your people and their people.
Surprisingly, it's not working too well. :dabs:
What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception :smilie4:
Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, you're right, it's just paranoia.
http://vikingphoenix.com/photos/911-2003/wtc-1.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/PentagonAirView14th.jpg
vidcc
10-23-2006, 05:01 PM
what did Iraq have to do with 911?
it's never been stay the course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZE20lzZZF0)
Oh noes, Skizo missed the point :dabs:
Oh noes, Skizo missed the point :dabs:
ummm....no, I believe you did, again.
I was responding to Barbs comment.
Biggles
10-23-2006, 05:52 PM
Is paranoia the new term for "painting yourself into a corner"? It is more succinct, I'll give it that.
Oh noes, Skizo missed the point :dabs:
ummm....no, I believe you did, again.
I was responding to Barbs comment.
:rolleyes: Read Barb's post, and vid's, again.
As for that "again" of yours....HAHA.
ummm....no, I believe you did, again.
I was responding to Barbs comment.
:rolleyes: Read Barb's post, and vid's, again.
As for that "again" of yours....HAHA.
Read Barb's post again. I still see no reason for your postulation. Nothing out of the ordinary there. :dabs:
As for vid's comment, it had nothing to do with my post. I thought I was crystal clear when I said, "I was responding to Barbs comment.". But I guess you missed that point as well.
vidcc
10-23-2006, 06:11 PM
As for vid's comment, it had nothing to do with my post.
Actually it was to do with your spoiler. Pictures of 911, so my question is
what did Iraq have to do with 911?
Actually it was to do with your spoiler. Pictures of 911, so my question is
what did Iraq have to do with 911?
Not much. I never said it did, nor was I insinuating it did.
Again,
I was merely replying to Barb's comment, "Your government is paranoid that there are people in some parts of the world that don't like them so much that they are prepared to tell people to crash your aeroplanes into your tall buildings.". - meaning that it is not just paranoia, but that it is happening.
Ok, skizo, I'll try this in really big letters, maybe you can follow that way.
Barb says:
Your government is paranoid that there are people in some parts of the world that don't like them so much that they are prepared to tell people to crash your aeroplanes into your tall buildings.
Therefore they are sending your young soldiers over to those places, to improve relations between your people and their people.
You go:
Yes, you're right, it's just paranoia.
And then you post pics from 9/11.
Then vid says:
what did Iraq have to do with 911?
Now, last I checked, it wasn't Iraq flying planes into tall buildings....
Yet, somehow, the war in Iraq has come to be about terrorism/911 (can't bloody well be about WMDs since there are none) and Bush does have a tendency of linking the two.
Therefore, it can be said, as Barb does, that young americans are being sent to their death because people in high places are paranoid about people in various places where the US isn't popular instigating terrorist attacks, because , hey, they did in another place.
:happy:
Biggles
10-23-2006, 06:22 PM
Thus proving the old adage that "just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not out to get you".
Whether the wars were the most appropriate or indeed most sensible response is another matter altogether.
Edit: Feck Snny can type fast :dabs:
bigboab
10-23-2006, 06:44 PM
IMO America wants Iraq as a buffer zone between Iran and Israel. They tried first by arming Saddam during the Iran- Iraq war. That did not work so they try to instal a democracy*, by force. That is not going to work. I honestly dont know what they will try next. As I say IMO it has nothing to do with terrorism.
* democracy; where Governments are elected by the people to represent themselves.
@ Les! It is Halloween time and Snny has a Swede ish keyboard.
I'll get my coat.:(
Thus proving the old adage that "just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not out to get you".
Whether the wars were the most appropriate or indeed most sensible response is another matter altogether.
Edit: Feck Snny can type fast :dabs:
It's an optical illusion, brought on by my cunning usage of a larger font.
Really, it's just a sentence or two, maybe three, maybe four, maybe...uhm, I'm lost.
:dabs:
What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception :smilie4:
Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I feel this is a fair-minded but unrealistic formulation, Barbie.
The mob is, first of all, most comfortable with what is most familiar.
We know this to be true from self-experience.
I guess the most apropos answer I have for your view is that Mussolini was greatly admired for making the trains run on time.
Democracy is so much more than that:
The predilection for anything less is what leads to the Shahs and Saddams of prior years, and I think we have had enough of that, at least according to those who criticize America for poking it's big nose (and military) about the globe.
True elective government weeds out Saddams and Shahs just about everywhere it is tried.
Left to themselves, these caliphate wannabees will yield to the strongest of the would-be strong-men, and the situation doesn't change at all.
If the U.S. does as it has in the past, the situation doesn't change, either.
We are in uncharted territory, as international opinion sits on the sidelines in judgement of they know not what.
In WWII, Germany and Japan, while suffering the same pains as Iraq, were resigned to their fates nonetheless by the fact they were so utterly defeated they had no choice.
Modern "opinion" no longer allows one nation to thoroughly subjugate another for that ultimate end, and disallows any consideration of the terrorist thought-process for reason of incorporation into a comprehensive strategy to fight it.
It's a tough go all 'round.
An interpreter is standing by, Busyman.
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 12:42 AM
What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception :smilie4:
Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I feel this is a fair-minded but unrealistic formulation, Barbie.
The mob is, first of all, most comfortable with what is most familiar.
We know this to be true from self-experience.
I guess the most apropos answer I have for your view is that Mussolini was greatly admired for making the trains run on time.
Democracy is so much more than that:
The predilection for anything less is what leads to the Shahs and Saddams of prior years, and I think we have had enough of that, at least according to those who criticize America for poking it's big nose (and military) about the globe.
True elective government weeds out Saddams and Shahs just about everywhere it is tried.
Left to themselves, these caliphate wannabees will yield to the strongest of the would-be strong-men, and the situation doesn't change at all.
If the U.S. does as it has in the past, the situation doesn't change, either.
We are in uncharted territory, as international opinion sits on the sidelines in judgement of they know not what.
In WWII, Germany and Japan, while suffering the same pains as Iraq, were resigned to their fates nonetheless by the fact they were so utterly defeated they had no choice.
Modern "opinion" no longer allows one nation to thoroughly subjugate another for that ultimate end, and disallows any consideration of the terrorist thought-process for reason of incorporation into a comprehensive strategy to fight it.
It's a tough go all 'round.
An interpreter is standing by, Busyman.
Where and what for??
I feel this is a fair-minded but unrealistic formulation, Barbie.
The mob is, first of all, most comfortable with what is most familiar.
We know this to be true from self-experience.
I guess the most apropos answer I have for your view is that Mussolini was greatly admired for making the trains run on time.
Democracy is so much more than that:
The predilection for anything less is what leads to the Shahs and Saddams of prior years, and I think we have had enough of that, at least according to those who criticize America for poking it's big nose (and military) about the globe.
True elective government weeds out Saddams and Shahs just about everywhere it is tried.
Left to themselves, these caliphate wannabees will yield to the strongest of the would-be strong-men, and the situation doesn't change at all.
If the U.S. does as it has in the past, the situation doesn't change, either.
We are in uncharted territory, as international opinion sits on the sidelines in judgement of they know not what.
In WWII, Germany and Japan, while suffering the same pains as Iraq, were resigned to their fates nonetheless by the fact they were so utterly defeated they had no choice.
Modern "opinion" no longer allows one nation to thoroughly subjugate another for that ultimate end, and disallows any consideration of the terrorist thought-process for reason of incorporation into a comprehensive strategy to fight it.
It's a tough go all 'round.
An interpreter is standing by, Busyman.
Where and what for??
In case you choose not to understand.
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 02:55 PM
Where and what for??
In case you choose not to understand.
I think most people understand you. You just talk in a roundaboutwayindirectlywithspinadded. Sometimes I can bother to trudge through the muck and sometimes I can't.
matt526
10-24-2006, 03:23 PM
The original question was, what have our troops died for?
Although Iran may have been a better country to attack to fight terrorism,
Attacking Iraq is still not all bad. I don’t know the exact figures but I do know that our troops have killed way more terrorist then 3,000. American troops have greatly disrupted most if not all of the known terrorist organizations, helping to keep America and other countries safe. Sure Iraq is a mess, but how is Bush supposed to finish the Job when he has so many enemies in his own Government, enemies that sometimes seem to be on the side of the terrorist and not the United States Of America.
I can’t believe there are actually elected officials in our government that would fight for the rights of known terrorist that we have in custody.
They've killed over 3000 terrorists...in Iraq? :blink:
Were these terrorists actually terrorists before Iraq was invaded? Were they bombing the US and that, I mean?
Barbarossa
10-24-2006, 04:02 PM
By "terrorists" I think he meant "potential terrorists", which of course translates to "Foreigners". :stars:
matt526
10-24-2006, 04:25 PM
They've killed over 3000 terrorists...in Iraq? :blink:
Were these terrorists actually terrorists before Iraq was invaded? Were they bombing the US and that, I mean?
With this logic we should wait and let them attack us first, then we can attack them.
Wow that’s smart. As much we don’t want to be in Iraq being there is a preemptive move that is doing a lot to keep the USA and other countries safe.
Also I don’t care when or where the terrorist came from; a terrorist is a terrorist and deserves to die.
So there weren't actually 3000 terrorists killed in Iraq then. You just pulled that number out of your arse.
'k, I was just checking.
Karen DiConcet
10-24-2006, 04:35 PM
That figure isn't that far off.
There's so far been about 3000 people of all nationalities killed.
Oh wait, that's 3000 every month.
That figure isn't that far off.
There's so far been about 3000 people of all nationalities killed.
Oh wait, that's 3000 every month.
Hella' lot of terrorists in the world.
Karen DiConcet
10-24-2006, 04:38 PM
and that buggering shit terrorist is still on the loose, damn crazy-ass brits.
matt526
10-24-2006, 04:39 PM
Yes there have been over 3,000 terrorist, Insurgents, foreigners (what ever you want to call them) killed in Iraq.
And of course there is no official number. But the last estimate was over 3,000 this according to FoxNews
:o Fox!!1!!
It must be true!
Last I checked some government spokesman claimed there'd been 3k terrorists killed, worldwide, in that wonderful war on terror Bush started.
Civilian casualties in Iraq are reported as being 40k+
And as for others killed in Iraq, lots of them hadn't been shooting at people or been blowing stuff up, had they not been attacked, and bombed, by the US.
(If a foreign power invaded YOUR country, would resisting make you a terrorist?)
matt526
10-24-2006, 04:59 PM
sorry I was wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.main/index.html
bigboab
10-24-2006, 05:00 PM
So there weren't actually 3000 terrorists killed in Iraq then. You just pulled that number out of your arse.
'k, I was just checking.
I sincerely hope you did not.:lol:
**********
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
There have been 3,038 coalition deaths, 2,803 Americans, two Australians, 119 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, six Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, two Romanians, two Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of October 24, 2006, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/world/0401/chart.iraq.fatalities/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no, directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620 ,height=430'))). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 21,077 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon
The above is far more coalition personnel than was killed in the twin towers. It is discounting the number of Iraqi and terrorists that have killed. The only thing that all this has proved is that there is definately weapons of mass destruction in Iraq now. :(
matt526
10-24-2006, 05:10 PM
Look… I am not happy that we are in Iraq and I wish we would have never gone in.
But the original question was about what our solders are fighting for.
Me being the optimist that I am, can see at least some good out of this war.
sorry I was wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.main/index.html
I hope you do know that Al Qaida is a bunch of twats who'll take responsibility or claim that they've bled for whatever cause they think is good, at any opportunity.
It doesn't actually mean that 4000 of them died in Iraq, more like it, 4000 muslim troops may have died.
Somehow the muppets think that all muslims are in their team, or they make it sound that way when they make their wee announcements. They've also claimed to have fought and died in Cheznya, in one of them brilliant speeches I heard translated on the radio, FFS.
vidcc
10-24-2006, 06:06 PM
I can’t believe there are actually elected officials in our government that would fight for the rights of known terrorist that we have in custody.
Do a search for the name Maher Arar.
As I posted in a different thread nobody wants to protect the terrorist. It is the innocent that due process protects. Due process doesn't protect the guilty.
How would due process help a "known" terrorist....I mean if we know they are terrorist then the case would be made during the process.
Why do you think we have trials at all?
Tempestv
10-24-2006, 08:05 PM
When the US went into to Afganistan, the US military basicly told the local leaders that we would pay cash for every terrorist that they turned in. We had no way of defining what was a terrorist, so if the guy turning him in claimed he was a terrorist, we sent him to cuba. Now put your self in the shoes of one of the local leaders that is sick and tired of dealing opposition, bumbs on the street, ect. Here is the perfect method of dealing with these problems, and you get paid for it as well. As a result, we have alcoholic "terrorists" in guantanamo bay, which makes no sense, considering that the taliban and al qaeda are comprised of hard line muslims that feel that alcohol consumption is a sin.
While I beleve that "known terrorists" should get no help, we first have to know which prisoners are "known terrorists"
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 10:12 PM
They've killed over 3000 terrorists...in Iraq? :blink:
Were these terrorists actually terrorists before Iraq was invaded? Were they bombing the US and that, I mean?
With this logic we should wait and let them attack us first, then we can attack them.
Wow that’s smart. As much we don’t want to be in Iraq being there is a preemptive move that is doing a lot to keep the USA and other countries safe.
Also I don’t care when or where the terrorist came from; a terrorist is a terrorist and deserves to die.
What logic are you talking about? The logic where we make folks angry that we attacked Iraq, they fight us, and it's a good thing?
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Busyman™
10-25-2006, 12:09 AM
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Not our problem. There is a cut-off point.
The folks in Darfur desire peace too....they just don't have shit we want.
Tempestv
10-25-2006, 12:14 AM
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Unfortunately that's the quandry that is the result of Bush and company's decision to attack Iraq in the first place, followed by Rumsfield's poor planning for the attack.
The question comes down to are we making progress in slowing the insergency, or is the US presence enraging more people and creating a bigger problem?
Last I heard, we were losing more troops per week than ever before.
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Granted, some of them are foreigners out to make trouble (who wouldn't have been there in the first place, had they not come to "help"), and some of them are probably criminals, since that's something war can attract...but, a fair share of them (religious nutters or not), those "militants" who get recruited at mosques and that, would probably not be attacking anyone, if someone hadn't come and attacked their native soil, and so forth.
So yes, a fair lot of them would probably prefer some peace and quiet, if they knew their country wasn't occupied by people they percieved as hostile to them and their way of life.
As it is, more of them are probably recruited every day, all the people doing the recruiting need do is point out what's happening around them :pinch:
And sticking in there and staying is probably not the best way of convincing them one's intentions are pure :dabs:
Like I asked before...if the roles were reversed, if you were the one whose country was invaded and occupied by people with different views and a different notion about how your country ought to be run...would fighting that make you an insurgent, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?
Busyman™
10-25-2006, 12:19 AM
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Unfortunately that's the quandry that is the result of Bush and company's decision to attack Iraq in the first place, followed by Rumsfield's poor planning for the attack.
The question comes down to are we making progress in slowing the insergency, or is the US presence enraging more people and creating a bigger problem?
One must realize too that even to many Americans, Bush's attack of Iraq looked suspect so wtf do you think many Iraqis thought?
Hey lets attack Cuba too. Castro is oppressive and stuff. The other Cubans will welcome us.
Busyman™
10-25-2006, 12:26 AM
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Granted, some of them are foreigners out to make trouble (who wouldn't have been there in the first place, had they not come to "help"), and some of them are probably criminals, since that's something war can attract...but, a fair share of them (religious nutters or not), those "militants" who get recruited at mosques and that, would probably not be attacking anyone, if someone hadn't come and attacked their native soil, and so forth.
So yes, a fair lot of them would probably prefer some peace and quiet, if they knew their country wasn't occupied by people they percieved as hostile to them and their way of life.
As it is, more of them are probably recruited every day, all the people doing the recruiting need do is point out what's happening around them :pinch:
And sticking in there and staying is probably not the best way of convincing them one's intentions are pure :dabs:
Like I asked before...if the roles were reversed, if you were the one whose country was invaded and occupied by people with different views and a different notion about how your country ought to be run...would fighting that make you an insurgent, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?
Yeah those fucking Wolverines were terrorists. Cuba and Russia were trying to help us.:mellow:
After finding out some American soldier shot (accidental or not) your 7 year-old son or a bomb exploding on your way to the mosque killing 30 people, you'll be ready to bring things back to the way they were.
It's pretty bad when you create a bee's nest.
If we left Iraq, presumably the insurgents, or terrorists-for-hire, or whatever you wish to call them, from within or without the country, would go home and...what?
Farm?
Do you suppose they desire peace? :whistling
Granted, some of them are foreigners out to make trouble (who wouldn't have been there in the first place, had they not come to "help"), and some of them are probably criminals, since that's something war can attract...but, a fair share of them (religious nutters or not), those "militants" who get recruited at mosques and that, would probably not be attacking anyone, if someone hadn't come and attacked their native soil, and so forth.
So yes, a fair lot of them would probably prefer some peace and quiet, if they knew their country wasn't occupied by people they percieved as hostile to them and their way of life.
As it is, more of them are probably recruited every day, all the people doing the recruiting need do is point out what's happening around them :pinch:
And sticking in there and staying is probably not the best way of convincing them one's intentions are pure :dabs:
Like I asked before...if the roles were reversed, if you were the one whose country was invaded and occupied by people with different views and a different notion about how your country ought to be run...would fighting that make you an insurgent, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?
Comprehensively unresponsive, SnnY.
Most of the border-crossers and other rabble-rousers are Jihad-unto-death types, inculcated at the mosques to hate America, Israel, and the West in general, conditioned unconditionally, per "Allah's" dictate.
Do you suppose they'll go all docile and lovey-dovey if we leave.
Busyman™
10-25-2006, 12:39 AM
The Iraq War - America's Auto Theft Bait Car :blink:
The Iraq War - America's Roach Motel
Who's the bait? Coalition soldiers, of course.
Maybe some Dems could use that in the run up to the elections.
"Bush wants to use our strong military as bait for the next 7 or so years."
Seedler
10-25-2006, 03:57 AM
It's only 3000 soldiers.
Seriously, and I say that not out of ignorance and spamming urges but the death tolls everyday in the world wars were higher.
I've wanked more times in a day than that:dabs:
Granted, some of them are foreigners out to make trouble (who wouldn't have been there in the first place, had they not come to "help"), and some of them are probably criminals, since that's something war can attract...but, a fair share of them (religious nutters or not), those "militants" who get recruited at mosques and that, would probably not be attacking anyone, if someone hadn't come and attacked their native soil, and so forth.
So yes, a fair lot of them would probably prefer some peace and quiet, if they knew their country wasn't occupied by people they percieved as hostile to them and their way of life.
As it is, more of them are probably recruited every day, all the people doing the recruiting need do is point out what's happening around them :pinch:
And sticking in there and staying is probably not the best way of convincing them one's intentions are pure :dabs:
Like I asked before...if the roles were reversed, if you were the one whose country was invaded and occupied by people with different views and a different notion about how your country ought to be run...would fighting that make you an insurgent, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?
Comprehensively unresponsive, SnnY.
Most of the border-crossers and other rabble-rousers are Jihad-unto-death types, inculcated at the mosques to hate America, Israel, and the West in general, conditioned unconditionally, per "Allah's" dictate.
Do you suppose they'll go all docile and lovey-dovey if we leave.
O rly. How come they weren't all attacking Americans before you got there then?
According to papers such as the Washington Post (apparently its editorials range from liberal to moderate, tho', so you'll prolly have something to say about that :rolleyes: )...the bulk of the insurgent army is believed to be something like:
The vast majority of insurgents, probably more than 90 percent, are believed to be Iraqis from the Sunni minority group that largely ruled the country before the fall of Saddam Hussein.
... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031702087.html)
Now, the last 10% (like parts of the native 90%) may be more or less on the terrorist track, but would they be there if they didn't have american targets, and would they have the same support if you removed the common enemy the "insurgents" fight?
I daresay there'd be a whole lot more trouble if they all (the full 100%) wanted YOU dead, and I also have to wonder what they are all doing in Iraq, if they all really want to hurt the USA. It seems a roundabout way of getting to your nation, fighting where they can't get to the majority of your population, and hardly any civilians at all.
Furthermore, one has to wonder how many of them now view the USA as their great enemy, exactly because they were invaded by the US.
And no, you didn't answer my question.
Like I asked before...if the roles were reversed, if you were the one whose country was invaded and occupied by people with different views and a different notion about how your country ought to be run...would fighting that make you an insurgent, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?
Alright, let's start again.
To answer your question strictly on it's merits, I'd say that would make me a freedom fighter.
Now then:
Strictly on the merits, what percentage of the malcontents do you suppose fit that precise definition?
Not a religious sympathizer from across some border, but a native Iraqi, unaffiliated with Al Qaeda or any other regional terrorist groups, but a true native Iraqi, even ex-military.
As a side note, if we were even looser with our discretion, we could arm all the homesick ex-pat Iraqis in the metro Detroit area, send them home, and have them clean the whole country out.
bigboab
10-25-2006, 07:51 PM
As a side note, if we were even looser with our discretion, we could arm all the homesick ex-pat Iraqis in the metro Detroit area, send them home, and have them clean the whole country out.
Good idea J2 but it would not work. Kennedy/Eisenhower tried that with The Bay Of Pigs in cuba.:)
Just in case. Kennedy used ex Cubans, not ex Iraqis.
Biggles
10-25-2006, 07:59 PM
Part of the difficulty in Iraq is the fact that there is not one insurgency but about 2 dozen.
There are Kurds who want an independent Kurdish state and who are inherently suspicious of both the Turks and the Arabs.
There are several Shia militias (not all of which are on speaking terms) many who have operatives in the military and the police (forming death squads to take out rivals).
There are Sunni insurgents who are ex Iraqi Ba'athists and would like a return to the brutal certainty of Saddam.
There are Sunni's who are radical Muslims - some Iraqi but also many AQ imports.
There are criminal gangs and black marketeers who kidnap, heist and generally scam everything going.
They all dislike each other and are killing each other at a rate of one every few minutes 24/7 365. The majority of the above are in fact Iraqi.
Then there are the Coalition troops. They are supposed to help keep this lot from killing each other whilst at the same time try to prevent the scams. The AQ Sunnis and some Iranian backed Shias sit in wait to take pot shots at the Coalition forces whenever they come out of barracks to attempt to enforce law on behalf of the iraqi Government (half of which is in cahoots with one of the above).
The more law and order fails the worse it gets and the easier it becomes for AQ types to wander in and out and plot. The Iraqis meanwhile are in a cycle of revenge and bloodlust.
I described the operation a few years ago as a folly - I have not been minded to change my position on what I have seen so far. However, we are well and truly painted into our corner. It is going to cost a lot more lives and money before we get out.
:ermm: Sorry to be so cheerful.
Part of the difficulty in Iraq is the fact that there is not one insurgency but about 2 dozen.
There are Kurds who want an independent Kurdish state and who are inherently suspicious of both the Turks and the Arabs.
There are several Shia militias (not all of which are on speaking terms) many who have operatives in the military and the police (forming death squads to take out rivals).
There are Sunni insurgents who are ex Iraqi Ba'athists and would like a return to the brutal certainty of Saddam.
There are Sunni's who are radical Muslims - some Iraqi but also many AQ imports.
There are criminal gangs and black marketeers who kidnap, heist and generally scam everything going.
They all dislike each other and are killing each other at a rate of one every few minutes 24/7 365. The majority of the above are in fact Iraqi.
Then there are the Coalition troops. They are supposed to help keep this lot from killing each other whilst at the same time try to prevent the scams. The AQ Sunnis and some Iranian backed Shias sit in wait to take pot shots at the Coalition forces whenever they come out of barracks to attempt to enforce law on behalf of the iraqi Government (half of which is in cahoots with one of the above).
The more law and order fails the worse it gets and the easier it becomes for AQ types to wander in and out and plot. The Iraqis meanwhile are in a cycle of revenge and bloodlust.
I described the operation a few years ago as a folly - I have not been minded to change my position on what I have seen so far. However, we are well and truly painted into our corner. It is going to cost a lot more lives and money before we get out.
:ermm: Sorry to be so cheerful.
Well enough put, and I think that is exactly why things are at a low ebb in Iraq.
The coalition is but one of about two dozen distinct fighting factions involved, not to mention the terrorists-in fact, I don't know if this even has the potential to become a proper civil war precisely for that reason: No one faction is strong enough to carry the day.
It's like their national elections were, ffs...several hundred candidates, all with dissimilar loyalties/pedigrees.
ps. They are still dieing for "it".
ram82082
10-27-2006, 09:11 PM
our youngmen/women died for OIL, because they were told to
ram82082
10-27-2006, 09:16 PM
It's only 3000 soldiers.
Seriously, and I say that not out of ignorance and spamming urges but the death tolls everyday in the world wars were higher.
I've wanked more times in a day than that:dabs:
Thats whats reported, 5 soilders could have been killed in the time it takes to post this. Remember in the Army, if theres no body, theres no kill.
Ava Estelle
11-18-2006, 06:30 PM
Most of the border-crossers and other rabble-rousers are Jihad-unto-death types, inculcated at the mosques to hate America, Israel, and the West in general, conditioned unconditionally, per "Allah's"
You can tell yourself this until you're blue in the face, it still won't be true.
They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals ... they hate the way we charge around the world as though we own it. They hate the way we sustain Israel, even when they are quite clearly in the wrong. They hate the way we indiscriminately kill their men, women and kids. In Afghanistan they hate the way we pay the warlords for keeping them oppressed, even allowing them to sit in the puppet government. In Iraq they hate the way we invaded on a pack of lies, and they hate the way we've treated them like shit since we got there. They also hate the way Saddam is sentenced to death, but those who sustained him, armed him, protected him at the UN, and urged him to carry out an unprovoked attack on Iran, are getting off scott free.
But of course, in your little Fox coloured world that counts for nothing, they should just sit back and take it, because the mighty US of A has god on it's side.
JPaul
11-18-2006, 06:45 PM
They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals ...
Yes they do.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
sjg1983
11-18-2006, 08:58 PM
i was in the army 2 years ago
and about 6 months ago i was sat watching the news and guess wat they told me a good mate in the army he had died in iraq also one mate went to iraq about 2months before it kicked off to sercure the oil fields!!
i was gutted about it mates in the army are different to my in day to day life
but
i knew he was there doing wat he loved
when people say why did they die it annoyed me and i can also see what they are saying
all the terrism was going to happen something trust me i have seen the document bout 5years ago
so all i can say
they knew wat they were doing when the walked in to the office and said
I WANT TO JON THE ARMY
they will alway be remembered and never forgot
R.I.P boys alway thinking off you
JPaul
11-18-2006, 09:13 PM
i was in the army 2 years ago
and about 6 months ago i was sat watching the news and guess wat they told me a good mate in the army he had died in iraq also one mate went to iraq about 2months before it kicked off to sercure the oil fields!!
i was gutted about it mates in the army are different to my in day to day life
but
i knew he was there doing wat he loved
when people say why did they die it annoyed me and i can also see what they are saying
all the terrism was going to happen something trust me i have seen the document bout 5years ago
so all i can say
they knew wat they were doing when the walked in to the office and said
I WANT TO JON THE ARMY
they will alway be remembered and never forgot
R.I.P boys alway thinking off you
Which country's army were you in.
sjg1983
11-18-2006, 11:34 PM
Uk
Ava Estelle
11-19-2006, 05:32 PM
They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals ...
Yes they do. No they don't.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
A bit like catholicism then.
They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals ...
Yes they do.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
No they don't.
If the words come directly from the mouths of the Jihadists for all to hear, and appear on videotape for all to see, who are you to call them liars?
I take them at their word.
You claim to know better...could you explain how you come by this highly-privileged knowledge?
JPaul
11-19-2006, 06:39 PM
Yes they do. No they don't.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
A bit like catholicism then.
Nope, Christianity teaches forgiveness, not fatwah.
You're still as predictable btw.
vidcc
11-19-2006, 06:51 PM
Would it be fair to say that they don't like our beliefs or way of life, but that they attacked us for something else?
If you look back bin laden was upset not that we are infidels but because we infidels had our military in his land.
They "hate us for our freedoms" makes a for a great soundbite to stir emotions but less of a reason that they attacked us.
This is a very simplified take and not meant to cover all the nuances
JPaul
11-19-2006, 07:00 PM
Would it be fair to say that they don't like our beliefs or way of life, but that they attacked us for something else?
If you look back bin laden was upset not that we are infidels but because we infidels had our military in his land.
They "hate us for our freedoms" makes a for a great soundbite to stir emotions but less of a reason that they attacked us.
This is a very simplified take and not meant to cover all the nuances
Good post.
Would it be fair to say that they don't like our beliefs or way of life, but that they attacked us for something else?
If you look back bin laden was upset not that we are infidels but because we infidels had our military in his land.
They "hate us for our freedoms" makes a for a great soundbite to stir emotions but less of a reason that they attacked us.
This is a very simplified take and not meant to cover all the nuances
Would it be fair to say this qualifies as a nuance?
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are merely the tree which springs from the root being fertilized by Wahhibism, and the Moqtada al Sadrs and Nasrallahs of the Islamic world.
The mal-intent toward the west is interwoven with Islam at every level, inculcated in children from the earliest stages.
Allahu Akbar! is on every student's lips.
This creates a fervor for the "cause" which isn't altered or short-circuited by any gestures of appeasement such as removal of a troop-force.
We are not going to desert Israel, either.
Simply put, not even "re-deployment" and a commensurate lessening of influence can undo their efforts to date.
Do you propose the U.N. undertake to de-program Islamic youth in it's entirety?
That's several nuances, actually.
vidcc
11-20-2006, 12:32 AM
Would it be fair to say this qualifies as a nuance?
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are merely the tree which springs from the root being fertilized by Wahhibism, and the Moqtada al Sadrs and Nasrallahs of the Islamic world.
The mal-intent toward the west is interwoven with Islam at every level, inculcated in children from the earliest stages.
Allahu Akbar! is on every student's lips.
This creates a fervor for the "cause" which isn't altered or short-circuited by any gestures of appeasement such as removal of a troop-force.
We are not going to desert Israel, either.
In the US, a hugely christian land, isn't the same message preached, "god is greater than everything".?
Had we not been in saudi would we have been targetted? I mean they didn't attack belgium did they?
perhaps you missed the point of what I said.
They "hate us for our freedoms" makes a for a great soundbite to stir emotions but less of a reason that they attacked us. it is used here to propagate fear, demonise the enemy and deflect from any other reason that may not be in our favor to deal with. The same tactic is used on the other side to rouse the masses to a cause.
You can see the same tactic with different words in every day American politics. Listen to limbaugh or hannity.
Simply put, not even "re-deployment" and a commensurate lessening of influence can undo their efforts to date.
Could the damage have already been done? It's not just about troops now.
Do you propose the U.N. undertake to de-program Islamic youth in it's entirety?
Do I propose ??????????
If you wish to propose something and ask if I think it's a good idea then feel free to do so, other than that please explain which ass you pulled that proposal and attached to me from.
Busyman™
11-20-2006, 02:49 AM
Where have those pesky colored alerts gone off to?:unsure:
In the US, a hugely christian land, isn't the same message preached, "god is greater than everything".?
Had we not been in saudi would we have been targetted? I mean they didn't attack belgium did they?
perhaps you missed the point of what I said.
They "hate us for our freedoms" makes a for a great soundbite to stir emotions but less of a reason that they attacked us. it is used here to propagate fear, demonise the enemy and deflect from any other reason that may not be in our favor to deal with. The same tactic is used on the other side to rouse the masses to a cause.
You can see the same tactic with different words in every day American politics. Listen to limbaugh or hannity.
Simply put, not even "re-deployment" and a commensurate lessening of influence can undo their efforts to date.
Could the damage have already been done? It's not just about troops now.
Do you propose the U.N. undertake to de-program Islamic youth in it's entirety?
Do I propose ??????????
If you wish to propose something and ask if I think it's a good idea then feel free to do so, other than that please explain which ass you pulled that proposal and attached to me from.
Okay, have it your way:
How do you propose we "undo" Wahhabism?
I made the mistake of assuming you'd prefer it done in the usual way.
BTW-
In our "hugely Christian land" where do you go to find youngsters
imbued with the duty to shed Islamic blood?
Hell, they teach the anti-west message in mosques right here in America.
Ava Estelle
11-20-2006, 06:04 AM
Nope, Christianity teaches forgiveness, not fatwah.
Christianity has been responsible over the centuries for the biggest 'fatwahs' ever, remember the Inquisitions?
Christianity teaches that the ONLY way to god is through Jesus and the Vatican has often stated that all other religions are 'misguided'.
Muslin countries are then attacked by a Christian country claiming to have god on their side.
The Middle East is crawling with Christians actively working to bring on the 'rapture', which they claim will save only them, no jews, no muslims or anyone else.
.. the root being fertilized by Wahhibism, and the Moqtada al Sadrs and Nasrallahs of the Islamic world.
Moqtada al Sadr and Nasrallah are shiites.
If the words come directly from the mouths of the Jihadists for all to hear, and appear on videotape for all to see, who are you to call them liars?
So George Bush and his harem tell the truth do they? They don't make things up to motivate the American people?
You claim to know better...could you explain how you come by this highly-privileged knowledge?
Maybe you should answer your own question, or do we take it for granted that the answer is 'Fox News'?
Would it be fair to say that they don't like our beliefs or way of life, but that they attacked us for something else?
A voice of reason in a sea of spin.
Chip Monk
11-20-2006, 12:02 PM
How very BD
You made a statement that was incorrect but you can't admit that, so you post a load of deflection saying that other people are as bad.
Tu quoque, same old same old.
vidcc
11-20-2006, 04:46 PM
Okay, have it your way:
How do you propose we "undo" Wahhabism?
I made the mistake of assuming you'd prefer it done in the usual way.
That is a long task that will take generations, but to start with I would look deeply into our foreign policy. We need to start being minimalists when it comes to interfering in the affairs of other nations, and when we do deal with others we need to stop looking at things purely from "what benefits us".
We can work with other nations without interfering with their internal affairs.
The US works best when it is helping in situations such as natural disasters. This can be enhanced with international coalitions to step in to prevent things like genocide.
In conflicts where we have no direct military involvement, taking one side then demanding that the only way a solution is going to be found is if the other side surrenders will not help our standing. If we are going to get involved then we need to be neutral.
The US would resent any outside interference in our local affairs, what logical reasoning concludes that our interference won't have the same effect.
Again this is very simplified and not meant to cover every nuance.
As I said they may not like our lifestyles but that's not why they started to attack us, we have other things going for us.
Now how do you suggest we stop them hating us? we can't kill them all, and as a tactic it's not really endearing.
BTW-
In our "hugely Christian land" where do you go to find youngsters
imbued with the duty to shed Islamic blood?
Hell, they teach the anti-west message in mosques right here in America.jesus camp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECP9qzjmF0) jesus camp 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE)
Allahu Akbar! is on every student's lips.
So it's wrong to say "god is great" ? Even as an atheist I don't think it's wrong saying it. It's a different matter when this fictional character is used to justify doing bad things though.
Are you saying that "god is greater than everything" is not taught in churches and by almost everyone up for election? Do you disagree that "god is greater than everything"? or just if it's said by a muslim and it might be a different god from your own?
You seem unwilling to see the difference between that message and its use as rhetoric to stir up emotion. Do we not see it from those that wish to put the ten commandments in every public building?
Are you suggesting that there is no anti-muslim rhetoric? glenn beck came straight out and asked our first muslim lawmaker if he sided with the US or the jihadists, not because of anything the lawmaker said or did, but simply because he is a muslim. Heck, you are using the actions of extremists to stir up anti muslim emotions.
Will you concede that there is a huge difference between someone who is fanatically religious and someone who is fanatical and uses religion as a tool?
Islam is a peaceful religion, as is christianity. There are those that interpret the "holy books" to reflect their personal views instead of looking at them for "guidance"
As an example, Jesus was about forgiveness. He stepped in and prevented an execution "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". So why do so many christians here support the death penalty and go with "an eye for an eye"?
In the US there has always been a bogeyman and the rhetoric about that bogeyman is often based more on bias and the need to demonise than fact.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
A bit like catholicism then.
Nope, Christianity teaches forgiveness, not fatwah.
You're still as predictable btw.
JP that isn't much of a rebuttal. I think Ava's point was accurate; correct me if i'm wrong, but catholicism does teach that various things that regularly happen in the west are sinful (mostly relating to sex) and does teach that you should try to convert people.
JPaul
11-20-2006, 08:16 PM
How does that change the original point. He said blah, I said blah was wrong.
He's deflecting the point, as always.
If I say Milwall supporters cause trouble and have a bad reputation as a travelling support. Then you say, well so do Valencia supporters, it does not in any way change the fact that Milwall supporters are trouble makers.
He was wrong in his original contention, so rather than trying to defend it he spoke about something else. It's old hat.
There's also a World of difference between saying that you think someones actions are wrong and killing them for it. There are no Christian fatwahs.
The Pope says, says mind you that a certain group have a violent way of dealing with things. They prove him wrong by burning churches and by shooting people. Hm, how does that work well.
I'm not even answering anything regarding the inquisitions, as it's another old hat argument about something that happened hundreds of years ago and was done in the name of some people. Or do we continue to despise modern Germans because of the holocaust.
Bearing in mind, that people saying they have God on their side is entirely different from religious leader talking, or giving edicts. I can assure you, George W Bush saying he has God on his side does not mean he is speaking for Christians. However Muslim leaders making proclamations are speaking as heads of their Church.
I think Ava's point was valid, it was a people in glass houses type comment. Ava didn't make any point about violence
They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals ...
Yes they do.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
I felt that in your above comment the implication was that: regarding western life as sinful and wanting others to join your religion; was somehow an example of hating western morals and our way of life. Imo thats a strange comment because anyone from This to me is a strange comment because almost all religious people will probably find much of western life sinful and the conversion comment is strange coming from a christian, considering that christianity is a strongly proselytising religion.
sorry above post is incomplete i got bored. religion sucks end of story
JPaul
11-20-2006, 08:48 PM
I think Ava's point was valid, it was a people in glass houses type comment. Ava didn't make any point about violence
Yes they do.
They think a lot of what we accept as a normal part of life, in a free society, is sinful. They want everyone else to join their religion and follow their belief system.
I felt that in your above comment the implication was that: regarding western life as sinful and wanting others to join your religion; was somehow an example of hating western morals and our way of life. Imo thats a strange comment because anyone from This to me is a strange comment because almost all religious people will probably find much of western life sinful and the conversion comment is strange coming from a christian, considering that christianity is a strongly proselytising religion.
sorry above post is incomplete i got bored. religion sucks end of story
He said ""They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals .."
That's simply not true.
That is a long task that will take generations, but to start with I would look deeply into our foreign policy. We need to start being minimalists when it comes to interfering in the affairs of other nations, and when we do deal with others we need to stop looking at things purely from "what benefits us".
We can work with other nations without interfering with their internal affairs.
The US works best when it is helping in situations such as natural disasters. This can be enhanced with international coalitions to step in to prevent things like genocide.
In conflicts where we have no direct military involvement, taking one side then demanding that the only way a solution is going to be found is if the other side surrenders will not help our standing. If we are going to get involved then we need to be neutral.
The US would resent any outside interference in our local affairs, what logical reasoning concludes that our interference won't have the same effect.
Again this is very simplified and not meant to cover every nuance.
As I said they may not like our lifestyles but that's not why they started to attack us, we have other things going for us.
Now how do you suggest we stop them hating us? we can't kill them all, and as a tactic it's not really endearing.
BTW-
In our "hugely Christian land" where do you go to find youngsters
imbued with the duty to shed Islamic blood?
Hell, they teach the anti-west message in mosques right here in America.jesus camp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECP9qzjmF0) jesus camp 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE)
Allahu Akbar! is on every student's lips.
So it's wrong to say "god is great" ? Even as an atheist I don't think it's wrong saying it. It's a different matter when this fictional character is used to justify doing bad things though.
Are you saying that "god is greater than everything" is not taught in churches and by almost everyone up for election? Do you disagree that "god is greater than everything"? or just if it's said by a muslim and it might be a different god from your own?
You seem unwilling to see the difference between that message and its use as rhetoric to stir up emotion. Do we not see it from those that wish to put the ten commandments in every public building?
Are you suggesting that there is no anti-muslim rhetoric? glenn beck came straight out and asked our first muslim lawmaker if he sided with the US or the jihadists, not because of anything the lawmaker said or did, but simply because he is a muslim. Heck, you are using the actions of extremists to stir up anti muslim emotions.
Will you concede that there is a huge difference between someone who is fanatically religious and someone who is fanatical and uses religion as a tool?
Islam is a peaceful religion, as is christianity. There are those that interpret the "holy books" to reflect their personal views instead of looking at them for "guidance"
As an example, Jesus was about forgiveness. He stepped in and prevented an execution "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". So why do so many christians here support the death penalty and go with "an eye for an eye"?
In the US there has always been a bogeyman and the rhetoric about that bogeyman is often based more on bias and the need to demonise than fact.
You've wasted a while lot of cyber-ink in order to avoid addressing the question of "what-to-do-about-it", given the absolute fact that Bin Laden's rhetoric and actions are part-and-parcel with the entire anti-U.S. sentiment/movement/jihad/indoctrination taking place in schools and mosques throughout the mideast as well as everywhere in the west.
Look at the riots in France, ffs...and, Ava? I'm pretty fucking sure that information can be had from sources other than Fox, so shove that simplistic view up your no-doubt expansive ass.
Vid, you drop the entire blame at the feet of American foreign policy, with extra emphasis on Bush's tenure.
What of it?
The situation remains, as must our resolve to fight, rather than appease it.
Leaving aside for a moment your claim as to the blame-worthiness of any number of causes, you have yet to serve up any sort of relevatory countermeasures, apart from vaguely imputing it is our lot to "take the medicine we've got coming" due to the "boorish behavior" we've exhibited to date.
HeavyMetalParkingLot
11-21-2006, 02:28 AM
Islam is a peaceful religion
* "Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Surah 9:5)
* "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)
* "Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other." (Qur'an 48:29)
* "Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone." (Qur'an 60:4)
* Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do. (Qur'an 8:37-39)
* And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Qur'an 2:193)
* "Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you." (Qur'an 9:123)
* "For he who believes in the Trinity, "the Fire will be his abode … a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemer." Qur'an (5:72-73)
Sorry, just wanted to point out that Islam is not so peaceful as it is made out to be.
vidcc
11-21-2006, 02:53 AM
Islam is a peaceful religion
* "Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Surah 9:5)
* "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)
* "Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other." (Qur'an 48:29)
* "Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone." (Qur'an 60:4)
* Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do. (Qur'an 8:37-39)
* And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Qur'an 2:193)
* "Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you." (Qur'an 9:123)
* "For he who believes in the Trinity, "the Fire will be his abode … a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemer." Qur'an (5:72-73)
Sorry, just wanted to point out that Islam is not so peaceful as it is made out to be.
The bible can be used to find less than peaceful points...what of it?
HeavyMetalParkingLot
11-21-2006, 03:05 AM
The bible can be used to find less than peaceful points...what of it?
As well you can. But if you read my original quote, you will see I mentioned Islam. I just found it funny saying Islam is a peaceful religion and reading part of the Islamic holy text saying fight and slay non-Muslims, seize and confine them and ambush them.
vidcc
11-21-2006, 03:26 AM
You've wasted a while lot of cyber-ink in order to avoid addressing the question of "what-to-do-about-it", given the absolute fact that Bin Laden's rhetoric and actions are part-and-parcel with the entire anti-U.S. sentiment/movement/jihad/indoctrination taking place in schools and mosques throughout the mideast as well as everywhere in the west.
Look at the riots in France, ffs...and, Ava? I'm pretty fucking sure that information can be had from sources other than Fox, so shove that simplistic view up your no-doubt expansive ass.
Vid, you drop the entire blame at the feet of American foreign policy, with extra emphasis on Bush's tenure.
What of it?
The situation remains, as must our resolve to fight, rather than appease it.
Leaving aside for a moment your claim as to the blame-worthiness of any number of causes, you have yet to serve up any sort of relevatory countermeasures, apart from vaguely imputing it is our lot to "take the medicine we've got coming" due to the "boorish behavior" we've exhibited to date. Ah that's right, bring out the old "why do you blame america first" line :rolleyes:
You asked what could be done to counter the hatred against us in the general islamic world. My answer is we could make a start by addressing some of the reasons they hate us. We are not going to make them love us by killing them.
I did not say "we should take our medicine" I said we should try some preventative care. We should try to stop being such arrogant assholes. We can kill as many terrorist as we can.I'm all for killing bin laden and his gang, but that is not going to solve the problem.
Unless we address the reasons they hate us then the dead terrorist will just be replaced with a new one. If you keep kicking a dog eventually it will bite. If you cannot even consider that we are far from perfect then how could you solve the problem.
Obviously you think they should be on their knees in gratitude at our foreign policy.
The world is not black and white. You seem to think the only reason we were attacked is because we are not muslims and we do no wrong
Now I don't think they are perfect, but that doesn't absolve us of our own imperfections
Had it not occurred to you that they are being told that the reason we are fighting them is because we want to destroy islam?
religion is a tool used (by both sides) to stir fear and emotions....
vidcc
11-21-2006, 03:33 AM
The bible can be used to find less than peaceful points...what of it?
As well you can. But if you read my original quote, you will see I mentioned Islam. I just found it funny saying Islam is a peaceful religion and reading part of the Islamic holy text saying fight and slay non-Muslims, seize and confine them and ambush them.
well I said
Islam is a peaceful religion, as is christianity. didn't you find it funny that I said christianity is as well?
HeavyMetalParkingLot
11-21-2006, 03:53 AM
didn't you find it funny that I said christianity is as well?
I didn't mention Christianity due to the fact I feel it is a subject we as Americans should be versed well enough on. Whereas Islam does not enjoy the same level of familiarity.
BTW: Buddism and it's subsects are the only ones who can claim the descriptive "peaceful". I mean I have enjoyed many a Happy Buddah plate special, but never a Happy Jihad plate special. :P
You've wasted a while lot of cyber-ink in order to avoid addressing the question of "what-to-do-about-it", given the absolute fact that Bin Laden's rhetoric and actions are part-and-parcel with the entire anti-U.S. sentiment/movement/jihad/indoctrination taking place in schools and mosques throughout the mideast as well as everywhere in the west.
Look at the riots in France, ffs...and, Ava? I'm pretty fucking sure that information can be had from sources other than Fox, so shove that simplistic view up your no-doubt expansive ass.
Vid, you drop the entire blame at the feet of American foreign policy, with extra emphasis on Bush's tenure.
What of it?
The situation remains, as must our resolve to fight, rather than appease it.
Leaving aside for a moment your claim as to the blame-worthiness of any number of causes, you have yet to serve up any sort of relevatory countermeasures, apart from vaguely imputing it is our lot to "take the medicine we've got coming" due to the "boorish behavior" we've exhibited to date. Ah that's right, bring out the old "why do you blame america first" line :rolleyes:
You asked what could be done to counter the hatred against us in the general islamic world. My answer is we could make a start by addressing some of the reasons they hate us. We are not going to make them love us by killing them.
I did not say "we should take our medicine" I said we should try some preventative care. We should try to stop being such arrogant assholes. We can kill as many terrorist as we can.I'm all for killing bin laden and his gang, but that is not going to solve the problem.
Unless we address the reasons they hate us then the dead terrorist will just be replaced with a new one. If you keep kicking a dog eventually it will bite. If you cannot even consider that we are far from perfect then how could you solve the problem.
Obviously you think they should be on their knees in gratitude at our foreign policy.
The world is not black and white. You seem to think the only reason we were attacked is because we are not muslims and we do no wrong
Now I don't think they are perfect, but that doesn't absolve us of our own imperfections
Had it not occurred to you that they are being told that the reason we are fighting them is because we want to destroy islam?
religion is a tool used (by both sides) to stir fear and emotions....
I trot that out because that is precisely what you are doing - blaming America first.
In any case, your "start" is not a solution, nor indeed is it even a "start".
What it is, mostly, is insufficient.
BTW-get a new analogy...you can kick a dog (biting or not) until it dies, but you can't kick it until it multiplies.
Ava Estelle
11-21-2006, 01:51 PM
He said ""They don't hate our way of life, or our customs and morals .."
That's simply not true.
Quoted out of context, of course, an old JP trait.
I used that as a rebuttal to j2k4's inference that that was the reason America was attacked, that it had nothing to do with their foreign policies. j2k4 seems to believe, and JP appears to agree, that bin Laden woke up one morning and decided to fight the west because he didn't like our freedoms. How naive does one have to be to believe that?
I trot that out because that is precisely what you are doing - blaming America first.
It seems to me that that is precisely where the blame should start, or do you still maintain that Iraq has WMDs, and Saddam harboured al Qaeda?
Tell me, do you believe any member(s) of the first Bush administration should be held to account, as Saddam has, for supplying the weapons and chemicals used by Saddam to murder his own people? Or for vetoing UN resolutions condemning him? Or George W for the illegal invasion of Iraq?
Maybe you still don't believe the CIA was waging a covert war in Afghanistan before the Russian invasion of 1979, even though that information is now de-classified? Or that people like bin Laden would be pissed off that you then allowed the country to descend into civil war when the Russians left, after promising to help rebuild the place and restore the government?
Oh no, let's not blame the lillywhite US government for anything, it's all THEIR fault.
vidcc
11-21-2006, 02:16 PM
I trot that out because that is precisely what you are doing - blaming America first.
In any case, your "start" is not a solution, nor indeed is it even a "start".you asked
How do you propose we "undo" Wahhabism? Just how do you counter it without addressing the reasons the "wahhbist" attacked us in the first place? Again it seems you think the only reason we were attacked is because we are not muslims.
It's not about "undoing" their religious beliefs, it's about addressing the reasons they attacked us.
They didn't attack us because we are not muslims. Just as you are now saying they did, they are saying we are attacking them because they are muslims. Religion is being used as a tool by both sides.
mortal men made choices and then claimed god is on their side. Not the other way round.
Do you really think our foreign policy is beloved by the rest of the world? I mean right now we are not just intensifying the hatred in those that already hated us, we are making new enemies.
What it is, mostly, is insufficient.
BTW-get a new analogy...you can kick a dog (biting or not) until it dies, but you can't kick it until it multiplies.
The other dogs in the pack had puppies while you were kicking it
So mr. multicultural expert.
What's your big idea that will stop them hating us?
Try actually answering one
JPaul
11-21-2006, 07:32 PM
Quoted out of context, of course, an old JP trait.
I used that as a rebuttal to j2k4's inference that that was the reason America was attacked, that it had nothing to do with their foreign policies. j2k4 seems to believe, and JP appears to agree, that bin Laden woke up one morning and decided to fight the west because he didn't like our freedoms. How naive does one have to be to believe that?
It's not quoted out of context. It's simply wrong, the context you put it in does not change that.
I haven't suggested "... that bin Laden woke up one morning and decided to fight the west because he didn't like our freedoms." I don't believe it so why would I say it.
Still putting words in people's mouths I see.
Personally I think the whole thing is political, using peoples religious beliefs to get support.
Quoted out of context, of course, an old JP trait.
I used that as a rebuttal to j2k4's inference that that was the reason America was attacked, that it had nothing to do with their foreign policies. j2k4 seems to believe, and JP appears to agree, that bin Laden woke up one morning and decided to fight the west because he didn't like our freedoms. How naive does one have to be to believe that?
I trot that out because that is precisely what you are doing - blaming America first.
It seems to me that that is precisely where the blame should start, or do you still maintain that Iraq has WMDs, and Saddam harboured al Qaeda?
Tell me, do you believe any member(s) of the first Bush administration should be held to account, as Saddam has, for supplying the weapons and chemicals used by Saddam to murder his own people? Or for vetoing UN resolutions condemning him? Or George W for the illegal invasion of Iraq?
Maybe you still don't believe the CIA was waging a covert war in Afghanistan before the Russian invasion of 1979, even though that information is now de-classified? Or that people like bin Laden would be pissed off that you then allowed the country to descend into civil war when the Russians left, after promising to help rebuild the place and restore the government?
Oh no, let's not blame the lillywhite US government for anything, it's all THEIR fault.
Let me put it this way:
You have as your favored (read "only") vehicle for remedial action the United Nations, which body could not enforce it's edicts against lowly Iraq.
How do you expect it to fare against the U.S.?
I can give a half-hearted acknowledgment to some of your proclamation, but it doesn't change a thing, so why don't you jump in the boat along with vid, and try to offer up a finished scenario which ends constructively?
Blame if you like...then what?
Terrorists will be defined by the U.S. government, and we'll kill them in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else they can be found.
Guilt, especially as defined by the like of bleeding hearts such as yourself, is not now, never has been, and never will be a plank of our foreign policy.
So, again - blame if you like, it's okay.
Just don't expect to be taken seriously if that's all you can muster.
vidcc
11-22-2006, 12:48 AM
what's your solution then? you've offered nothing
So mr. multicultural expert.
What's your big idea that will stop them hating us?
Try actually answering one
Here you go:
Kill the ones who are actively involved in trying to kill us, without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
Propagandize in any way possible way to counter their own propaganda.
Don't stop either of the above until they reject their fundamentalist Jihadist bullshit.
Fight fire with bigger fire.
There's your answer.
Almost forgot:
Continue doing the diplomatic cha-cha, humoring the U.N. and hope it yields favorable results someday.
vidcc
11-22-2006, 01:09 AM
Here you go:
Kill the ones who are actively involved in trying to kill us, without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
Propagandize in any way possible way to counter their own propaganda.
Don't stop either of the above until they reject their fundamentalist Jihadist bullshit.
Fight fire with bigger fire.
There's your answer.
I'm all for killing bin laden and his gang, but that is not going to solve the problem.
So you think that if you kill enough innocent people they will eventually love us and hate the people fighting us.:rolleyes:
The trouble with propaganda is that it can be seen through by anyone with their eyes open.
leave any dubious foreign policy as it is, after all it's good for us so fuck them.
Did you attend the kramer school of world affairs (sole subject "how to win friends and influence them") by any chance?
Well good luck with that.
homicide bombers:clap: A faux news invention. All bombers are "homicide" bombers, they just didn't want to call them suicide bombers.
I'm all for killing bin laden and his gang, but that is not going to solve the problem.
So you think that if you kill enough innocent people they will eventually love us and hate the people fighting us.:rolleyes:
Find for me where I said "innocent people".
The trouble with propaganda is that it can be seen through by anyone with their eyes open.
True, in the main, but 3, 4, and 5-year-olds can have their eyes open as far as possible and still be susceptible.
leave any dubious foreign policy as it is, after all it's good for us so fuck them.
Find for me where I said "fuck them".
Did you attend the kramer school of world affairs (sole subject "how to win friends and influence them") by any chance?
Well good luck with that.
Now that's just a really lame hack.
Typical, though.
homicide bombers:clap: A faux news invention. All bombers are "homicide" bombers, they just didn't want to call them suicide bombers.
Hmmm.
No response necessary...in the process of trying to make yet another pointless point, you agreed with me.
vidcc
11-22-2006, 01:33 AM
Find for me where I said "innocent people".
without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
You may not have used the word "innocent" but explain the difference.
True, in the main, but 3, 4, and 5-year-olds can have their eyes open as far as possible and still be susceptible.
And how do you propose to gain access to this audience? Do you suppose their parents and kinsmen would have more or less influence?
And just what propaganda are you planning on using?
Find for me where I said "fuck them".
In the earlier posts you called my ideas no good, all I was doing was blaming America when obviously we do no wrong so if you are unwilling to look at foreign policy what are you saying? :rolleyes:
Hmmm.
No response necessary...in the process of trying to make yet another pointless point, you agreed with me. Only I said I am all for killing bin laden and his gang, but it will not solve the problem..you think it will, and it's solutions we are after.
Busyman™
11-22-2006, 02:57 AM
So mr. multicultural expert.
What's your big idea that will stop them hating us?
Try actually answering one
Here you go:
Kill the ones who are actively involved in trying to kill us, without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
Propagandize in any way possible way to counter their own propaganda.
Don't stop either of the above until they reject their fundamentalist Jihadist bullshit.
Fight fire with bigger fire.
There's your answer.
Once again I have to give kudos for jay giving a straight answer.
It's a rarity folks.
1. His use of a thesaurus in the above post was "highly lacking".
2. He used the words that came to mind to convey his thoughts.
3. The lack of riddles is also lacking. I could not find one single question mark in his post nor a misinredirect.
We should all be proud of him. This is an astounding achievement.
Please all, let's encourage this in him for future posts. Sure his post rate, and all of ours for that matter, would go down in the process, but I think it's a step in the right direction of being direct and coherent.
Many of us have large vocabularies, and some of us don't and so choose to use thesauruses to make up for it. Ultimately, the point is to convey what you mean to the reader or listener and not to show you know another word for confused and choose to try to flummox your audience rather than simply confuse them.:crazy:
Good job, jay. Good job.
Here you go:
Kill the ones who are actively involved in trying to kill us, without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
Propagandize in any way possible way to counter their own propaganda.
Don't stop either of the above until they reject their fundamentalist Jihadist bullshit.
Fight fire with bigger fire.
There's your answer.
Once again I have to give kudos for jay giving a straight answer.
It's a rarity folks.
1. His use of a thesaurus in the above post was "highly lacking".
2. He used the words that came to mind to convey his thoughts.
3. The lack of riddles is also lacking. I could not find one single question mark in his post nor a misinredirect.
We should all be proud of him. This is an astounding achievement.
Please all, let's encourage this in him for future posts. Sure his post rate, and all of ours for that matter, would go down in the process, but I think it's a step in the right direction of being direct and coherent.
Many of us have large vocabularies, and some of us don't and so choose to use thesauruses to make up for it. Ultimately, the point is to convey what you mean to the reader or listener and not to show you know another word for confused and choose to try to flummox your audience rather than simply confuse them.:crazy:
Good job, jay. Good job.
I don't use a thesaurus.
Also, you have no idea how many utterly incredible posts you've (dis)missed because you don't use a thesaurus.
Fact.
Truth, as well.
BTW-
Have you noticed how the tone and content of your posting has risen since you've been under my influence?
Amazing, isn't it? :)
Even vid's has improved a bit; no small achievement.
Busyman™
11-22-2006, 04:33 AM
Once again I have to give kudos for jay giving a straight answer.
It's a rarity folks.
1. His use of a thesaurus in the above post was "highly lacking".
2. He used the words that came to mind to convey his thoughts.
3. The lack of riddles is also lacking. I could not find one single question mark in his post nor a misinredirect.
We should all be proud of him. This is an astounding achievement.
Please all, let's encourage this in him for future posts. Sure his post rate, and all of ours for that matter, would go down in the process, but I think it's a step in the right direction of being direct and coherent.
Many of us have large vocabularies, and some of us don't and so choose to use thesauruses to make up for it. Ultimately, the point is to convey what you mean to the reader or listener and not to show you know another word for confused and choose to try to flummox your audience rather than simply confuse them.:crazy:
Good job, jay. Good job.
I don't use a thesaurus.
Also, you have no idea how many utterly incredible posts you've (dis)missed because you don't use a thesaurus.
Fact.
Truth, as well.
BTW-
Have you noticed how the tone and content of your posting has risen since you've been under my influence?
Amazing, isn't it? :)
Even vid's has improved a bit; no small achievement.
The tone and content of my posts are up and down depending on my mood.
Your arrogance is quite amusing sometimes though when you aren't being a bore.
I've dismissed your posts due to it's lack of content. Using a thesaurus to say something simple is boring and a waste of time. That's part me being impatient and part me in the past having to deal with roundabout talkers in high school and college that tried to mask their lack of substance with spell-check words.
Hell I have a short voice-mail message that instructs those leaving a message to be "brief and concise".
Tell me the "what" and move on. Use of an extensive vocab is good for grabbing the listener, not showing that you can use an extensive vocab. This can range from the "motherfuckers" and "biatches" to the "profundity" and "platitudinous".
[
I've dismissed your posts due to it's lack of content.
Keep working on your syntax.
Tell me the "what" and move on. Use of an extensive vocab is good for grabbing the listener, not showing that you can use an extensive vocab. This can range from the "motherfuckers" and "biatches" to the "profundity" and "platitudinous".
Congratulations on your spelling.
Once you've learned the value of consistency, we'll work on your use of logic and brush up on your objectivity.
Busyman™
11-22-2006, 11:19 AM
[
I've dismissed your posts due to it's lack of content.
Keep working on your syntax.
Tell me the "what" and move on. Use of an extensive vocab is good for grabbing the listener, not showing that you can use an extensive vocab. This can range from the "motherfuckers" and "biatches" to the "profundity" and "platitudinous".
Congratulations on your spelling.
Once you've learned the value of consistency, we'll work on your use of logic and brush up on your objectivity.
I don't care. You can't work on anything. You put more stock into it than I do.
Cheese
11-22-2006, 11:25 AM
I've dismissed your posts due to it's lack of content. Using a thesaurus to say something simple is boring and a waste of time. That's part me being impatient and part me in the past having to deal with roundabout talkers in high school and college that tried to mask their lack of substance with spell-check words.
I think you are just covetous of J2's vocabulary to be honest, for all your purported powers of ratiocination you do seem to have a rather modest word-stock further hampered by a lack of understanding of the words you do have. I recall, for instance, your hilarious misuse of "soliloquy (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/the-drawing-room/t-is-genes-97173/page4/?highlight=soliloquy)". Also frequent difficulties with coherent sentence structure, I'm not talking of problems with commas and periods but honest-to-god complete nonsense.
Your trick when you need to mask a "lack of substance" (like your "roundabout talker"'s trick), is to spell words wrong intentionally (I think you're attempting some sort of gangsta' or jive talk, I'm never really sure...) and insult the poster with stock insults or digs about how much more educated they are than yourself.
The thing is, I am sure that your posts sound good in your head before you write them down but you do have a problem in expressing your opinions in a manner that is understandable to your audience. Oddly enough, expanding your own vocabulary would probably help your communication problem. Read a book or something, I recommend The Picture of Dorian Gray.
So this thread is about other people's posting styles then?* :dabs:
*Or complete lack of style in this case?
JPaul
11-22-2006, 08:21 PM
I've dismissed your posts due to it's lack of content. Using a thesaurus to say something simple is boring and a waste of time. That's part me being impatient and part me in the past having to deal with roundabout talkers in high school and college that tried to mask their lack of substance with spell-check words.
I think you are just covetous of J2's vocabulary to be honest, for all your purported powers of ratiocination you do seem to have a rather modest word-stock further hampered by a lack of understanding of the words you do have. I recall, for instance, your hilarious misuse of "soliloquy (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/the-drawing-room/t-is-genes-97173/page4/?highlight=soliloquy)". Also frequent difficulties with coherent sentence structure, I'm not talking of problems with commas and periods but honest-to-god complete nonsense.
Your trick when you need to mask a "lack of substance" (like your "roundabout talker"'s trick), is to spell words wrong intentionally (I think you're attempting some sort of gangsta' or jive talk, I'm never really sure...) and insult the poster with stock insults or digs about how much more educated they are than yourself.
The thing is, I am sure that your posts sound good in your head before you write them down but you do have a problem in expressing your opinions in a manner that is understandable to your audience. Oddly enough, expanding your own vocabulary would probably help your communication problem. Read a book or something, I recommend The Picture of Dorian Gray.
So this thread is about other people's posting styles then?* :dabs:
*Or complete lack of style in this case?
It's such a pity he has little chance of understanding that.
Busyman™
11-22-2006, 11:22 PM
I've dismissed your posts due to it's lack of content. Using a thesaurus to say something simple is boring and a waste of time. That's part me being impatient and part me in the past having to deal with roundabout talkers in high school and college that tried to mask their lack of substance with spell-check words.
I think you are just covetous of J2's vocabulary to be honest, for all your purported powers of ratiocination you do seem to have a rather modest word-stock further hampered by a lack of understanding of the words you do have. I recall, for instance, your hilarious misuse of "soliloquy (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/the-drawing-room/t-is-genes-97173/page4/?highlight=soliloquy)". Also frequent difficulties with coherent sentence structure, I'm not talking of problems with commas and periods but honest-to-god complete nonsense.
Your trick when you need to mask a "lack of substance" (like your "roundabout talker"'s trick), is to spell words wrong intentionally (I think you're attempting some sort of gangsta' or jive talk, I'm never really sure...) and insult the poster with stock insults or digs about how much more educated they are than yourself.
The thing is, I am sure that your posts sound good in your head before you write them down but you do have a problem in expressing your opinions in a manner that is understandable to your audience. Oddly enough, expanding your own vocabulary would probably help your communication problem. Read a book or something, I recommend The Picture of Dorian Gray.
So this thread is about other people's posting styles then?* :dabs:
*Or complete lack of style in this case?
What the fuck do you mean?
Ava Estelle
11-23-2006, 01:44 PM
I can give a half-hearted acknowledgment to some of your proclamation, but it doesn't change a thing, so why don't you jump in the boat along with vid, and try to offer up a finished scenario which ends constructively?
As I said years ago, and I stick to it ... this will be stopped only by negotiation. We've had 5 years of the US doing it their way after 9\11 and what is the progress report? Afghanistan in an absolute mess, the warlords promoted to government and supplying 80+% of the world's heroin, whilst the ordinary people long for the days of the Taliban ... and where is bin Laden?
Then you have Iraq, no threat to anyone, no connection to terrorism except a nominal payment to families of suicide bombers, now in a state of civil war, the whole area destabilised, terrorists everywhere, the world Muslim community up in arms, and two of the countries from madman Bush's 'axis of evil', Syria and Iran, seen as the only way forward. 65,000 deaths for what?
It makes this statement look rather lame, to say the least ..
Terrorists will be defined by the U.S. government, and we'll kill them in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else they can be found.
Anywhere else they can be found certainly broadens your horizons, because now, thanks to the madman, they are everywhere, good job boys, you certainly know how to turn a molehill into a mountain!
Guilt, especially as defined by the like of bleeding hearts such as yourself, is not now, never has been, and never will be a plank of our foreign policy.
Which is why your foreign policies "is not now, never has been, and never will" work.
JPaul
11-23-2006, 06:31 PM
I think you are just covetous of J2's vocabulary to be honest, for all your purported powers of ratiocination you do seem to have a rather modest word-stock further hampered by a lack of understanding of the words you do have. I recall, for instance, your hilarious misuse of "soliloquy (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/the-drawing-room/t-is-genes-97173/page4/?highlight=soliloquy)". Also frequent difficulties with coherent sentence structure, I'm not talking of problems with commas and periods but honest-to-god complete nonsense.
Your trick when you need to mask a "lack of substance" (like your "roundabout talker"'s trick), is to spell words wrong intentionally (I think you're attempting some sort of gangsta' or jive talk, I'm never really sure...) and insult the poster with stock insults or digs about how much more educated they are than yourself.
The thing is, I am sure that your posts sound good in your head before you write them down but you do have a problem in expressing your opinions in a manner that is understandable to your audience. Oddly enough, expanding your own vocabulary would probably help your communication problem. Read a book or something, I recommend The Picture of Dorian Gray.
So this thread is about other people's posting styles then?* :dabs:
*Or complete lack of style in this case?
What the fuck do you mean?
:lol:
As I said years ago, and I stick to it ... this will be stopped only by negotiation. We've had 5 years of the US doing it their way after 9\11 and what is the progress report? Afghanistan in an absolute mess, the warlords promoted to government and supplying 80+% of the world's heroin, whilst the ordinary people long for the days of the Taliban ... and where is bin Laden?
Then you have Iraq, no threat to anyone, no connection to terrorism except a nominal payment to families of suicide bombers, now in a state of civil war, the whole area destabilised, terrorists everywhere, the world Muslim community up in arms, and two of the countries from madman Bush's 'axis of evil', Syria and Iran, seen as the only way forward. 65,000 deaths for what?
It makes this statement look rather lame, to say the least ..
Terrorists will be defined by the U.S. government, and we'll kill them in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else they can be found.
Anywhere else they can be found certainly broadens your horizons, because now, thanks to the madman, they are everywhere, good job boys, you certainly know how to turn a molehill into a mountain!
Guilt, especially as defined by the like of bleeding hearts such as yourself, is not now, never has been, and never will be a plank of our foreign policy.
Which is why your foreign policies "is not now, never has been, and never will" work.
Just giving the unemployed radical Muslims something to do.
Ava Estelle
11-24-2006, 05:03 AM
Just giving the unemployed radical Muslims something to do.
I'm sorry, is Kev sick? Did he ask you to reply for him? :blink:
Please give him my regards, and I hope he feels better soon. :yup:
And that makes ten.
BTW-
Kev is fine; fit and rested.
Thanks for asking. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.